We highlight one recent VCAT judgement   where the application for a three storey extension to a shop and the waiving of car parking was accepted by the member. Council’s position was that the fronting car park should not be utilised as car parking for the development, and that there be onsite parking. 

This sounds reasonable – on the surface! Closer examination reveals the flaws in current planning policy and the agendas which guide such policy. In the end it’s all about leaving as many options open as possible for future development. Structure plans, height limits, and precinct car parking policies would in effect limit such development. The members judgement below makes this absolutely clear – 

“The Council’s opposition to the proposed rear shopfront also appears to be partly based on a potential future scenario where the car park may be redeveloped in an intensive manner. The concern is that any such redevelopment may be constrained by the fact that the shop has its only access and outlook to this area, and/or that any such future development will detrimentally affect the visibility and viability of the shop by effectively concealing it from view. While I can understand Council’s concerns, it is highly relevant that there are currently no plans to redevelop the car park.

There is no Structure Plan for the activity centre, no planning policy in the Planning Scheme which identifies this as a potential outcome, nor any Council-adopted strategy or other policy which nominates the public car park as a redevelopment site within the centre. It appears to me to be a case of the Council, somewhat understandably, wishing to ‘keep its options open’ but there is no evidence that this potential outcome will, in fact, materialise. The necessary strategic work has not been undertaken, and to constrain the redevelopment of neighbouring sites on the basis of something that ‘may’ happen some time in the future (in the absence of any policy or strategy) does not seem to me to be reasonable.” 

The following section also raises questions as to how well council prepares in its VCAT defence. The lack of logic, shown up by the member, speaks for itself –

“I was advised that the Council’s Building and Properties Department does not recognise any carriageway rights the review site may have over the laneway. It is noteworthy that the Certificate of Title identifies the laneway as a ‘Road’. I was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the review site does not have a legal right of carriageway over this road. Nonetheless, I perceive an inherent contradiction in the Council’s position on this issue. It is willing to support the proposal subject to the provision of four car spaces on the land (as I will detail in the following section of these reasons) and therefore acknowledges rights of carriageway over the laneway for the purposes of accessing these desired car spaces, but it is not willing to acknowledge these carriageway rights for pedestrians accessing the proposed shop. As I see it, the review site either enjoys carriageway rights over the laneway, or it does not. I was not referred to any document which states that the review site can rely on the abutting road (laneway) for vehicular access, but it cannot do so for pedestrian access”.

Conclusion? We merely repeat the member’s comments – ie. ‘necessary strategic work has not been undertaken’; ‘no evidence; ‘contradictory’ and so on……..